And the third? Well, because it never stops. Ever.

Case in point, a somewhat frivolous story, which actually does have important broader implications for the Web, about the mini-tussle between blogger Robert Scoble and Facebook.

Right away, I backed up Scoble over the popular social network, after Facebook disabled his account over his violation of its policies. The voluble blogger used a software program to scrape data off his profile.

I did so mostly because I am a big proponent of data portability and find it offensive that sites like Facebook endlessly scrape everyone’s data. But then they are shocked when people want to control their own information and move into a hypocritical protective mode of data they typically abuse.

Others disagreed, like commenters on my post and the always sharp Nick Carr, who raised the notion that Scoble was a “data thief” for trying to move some data–name, contact info and birthdays–to another service.

Wrote Carr on his Rough Type blog: “Now, if you happen to be one of those ‘friends,’ would you think of your name, email address and birthday as being ‘Scoble’s data’ or as being ‘my data.’ If you’re smart, you’ll think of it as being ‘my data,’ and you’ll be very nervous about the ability of someone to easily suck it out of Facebook’s database and move it into another database without your knowledge or permission. After all, if someone has your name, email address and birthday, they pretty much have your identity–not just your online identity, but your real-world identity.”

Carr added that “members should have the right to decide whether or not their personal information can be scraped out of the Facebook database. Scoble did not give them that choice. … Until controls are in place, unauthorized scraping of other members’ personal information shouldn’t be allowed.”

To my mind, that’s a rather nanny-state stance for him to take, given that people put that data up there for their friends to presumably use. Scoble or anyone could have simply copied down that info and transferred it (everyone does this ALL the time) manually.

Scoble’s motives in doing this were obviously benign (aside from his eternal need for attention, which is also harmless). And, big surprise, there are a lot of bad actors out there who want the data for other more nefarious reasons.

But all that’s needed, I think, is to treat people like intelligent adults and make it perfectly clear to them that some may actually use the data you post publicly for friends you accept into your online circle. That way people can decide exactly how much information they want out there.

Of course, the teapot-tempest got all resolved after Scoble promised he would no longer be naughty–even though he compared himself in a deeply goofy manner to Gandhi and then the Boston Tea Party gang–and Facebook reinstated him.

But what I loved about the story and countless ones like it was the enormous range of opinions, Twitters, posts, comments and videos (from Scoble too, of course) that were generated. While some might call it piling on or even mindless, I think it represents an amazing sign of vibrancy and energy that is promising for journalism.

While print publications might be suffering, the information business is not. Although there are many more players–some better than others–in the landscape, the changes give professionals the chance to notch up their game by delivering more energetic, more informed content that is characterized by the high standards they carry with them from old media at its best.

Of course, new business models for online content are nascent and still questionable, but smart people with great offerings can always figure out a way to benefit from the obvious interest in consumers in being able to access all kinds of information, both trusted and also even silly.

Which is why I laughed out loud when I got a link to a new Facebook group being formed to “Keep Robert Scoble Off Facebook,” all with the blessing of Fake Steve Jobs.

He wrote: “Meanwhile we’re trying to figure out if we can banish Scoble from using Apple products or visiting Apple retail stores. From what I’m told others have picked up on the same idea. Google wants him off their apps. Twitter says he’s eating up too much bandwidth. Here’s a thought. Why not banish Robert Scoble from the Internet altogether? Is that even possible? Moshe says he’s looking into it.”

Namaste.

In a front page article Sunday, New York Times writer Gary Rivlin drags out that old Silicon Valley chestnut about how hard it to is be just a plain old millionaire when everyone else around you has all those hundreds of millions and–worse!–billions.

I always enjoy Rivlin’s work and even spent a lovely few weeks with him and also Po Bronson on a lecture/debate scheme hatched by our Random House editor called the “Bleeding Edge” book tour in the summer 1999. (Here’s a quick recap: I thought the Internet was underhyped at the time and Rivlin did not, while Bronson dreamily sold more books than both of us combined.)

But it’s a bit of a stretch to imagine anyone–even in the gold rush days of the Web–not being happy with several million in the bank.

Notes Rivlin: “…Those with a few million dollars often see their accumulated wealth as puny, a reflection of their modest status in the new Gilded Age, when hundreds of thousands of people have accumulated much vaster fortunes…”

Oh, good heavens.

But Rivlin did manage to get his interview subjects to say appalling things, such as calling tech work the “Silicon Valley salt mines” (um, the food is a bit better and there are no whips and chains I have ever seen except by personal preference).

My personal favorite was a quote from Match.com founder Gary Kremen, who apparently without irony declared, “You’re nobody here at $10 million.”

At this, I can only quote the poet Emily Dickinson:

I’m nobody! Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there’s a pair of us–don’t tell!
They’d banish us, you know!

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog.
To tell your name the livelong day
To an admiring bog!”

SPOILER ALERT! HARRY POTTER IS FAKE STEVE JOBS!

Speaking of nobody we knew until just now–the Times’ Brad Stone also managed to finally out the creator of the popular Fake Steve Jobs blog. As it turns out, it is not our own John Paczkowski, but Daniel Lyons (pictured here), a senior editor at Forbes magazine.

While some will care more than others about Stone’s identifying the snarkaholic FSJ (Owen, stop crying now), it’s, of course, about the need to sell a book. In this case, Lyons’s “Options: The Secret Life of Steve Jobs, a Parody,” coming out in the fall.

In a post Sunday, Lyons asked for suggestions for a new verb for Stone’s first name, and then suggested himself: “To bust a fellow filthy hack without mercy and spoil the fun for everyone, in a quest for personal aggrandizement.”

Yes, just like Harry Potter spoilers on the Web! In fact, the Harry-Potter-as-middle-aged-man-looking Lyons would know all about that kind of thing.

MEMO TO MITT: THE KIDS LOVE BOTH SNOWMEN AND THE WEB

And Mitt Romney needs to get over himself, after he viciously attacked the snowman named Billiam. The frozen questioner was posing a pretty good question about global warming in the YouTube/CNN presidential debates recently completed with Democratic presidential candidates.

The GOP wannabes were supposed to do the digital debate in September. But that has been stymied so far when the former Massachusetts governor said a video question from a snowman was undignified, noting, “I don’t know that it makes sense to have people running for president answering questions posed by snowmen.”

Given snowmen have the most to suffer from the climate heating up, I say: Who better!?!

In all seriousness, the Jon-Stewart-tone of the Web is something all the candidates had better get used to. In fact, years hence, queries from snowmen are going to look tame by comparison.

Here’s a Dow Jones Online video on the topic with the chilly question from Billiam: